When ever these two come up in a debate over who is the superior QB, the Manning guys always say "Look at the stats, Peyton owns all the records! Rings are team accomplishments, not individual accolades!" And they're right.

A ring is a team based honor, but so what? A Quarterbacks offensive stats are team based honors as well. Does Peyton Manning snap the ball to himself, pass blocks, throws the ball and then catches it? No, he has a good offensive team to make the stats work. Where BB gave Brady a good defense from 2001-2006, with mediocre and subpar receivers, Peyton had great offenses with mediocre and subpar defenses.

When ever these two come up in a debate over who is the superior QB, the Manning guys always say "Look at the stats, Peyton owns all the records! Rings are team accomplishments, not individual accolades!" And they're right.

A ring is a team based honor, but so what? A Quarterbacks offensive stats are team based honors as well. Does Peyton Manning snap the ball to himself, pass blocks, throws the ball and then catches it? No, he has a good offensive team to make the stats work. Where BB gave Brady a good defense from 2001-2006, with mediocre and subpar receivers, Peyton had great offenses with mediocre and subpar defenses.

So why is Tom faulted for his team when Peyton gets praised for his?

I'm sending you some cheddar. Maybe that will ease the pain.

pain, am I a fan of a team that's closing in on 50 years without a ring?

When ever these two come up in a debate over who is the superior QB, the Manning guys always say "Look at the stats, Peyton owns all the records! Rings are team accomplishments, not individual accolades!" And they're right.

A ring is a team based honor, but so what? A Quarterbacks offensive stats are team based honors as well. Does Peyton Manning snap the ball to himself, pass blocks, throws the ball and then catches it? No, he has a good offensive team to make the stats work. Where BB gave Brady a good defense from 2001-2006, with mediocre and subpar receivers, Peyton had great offenses with mediocre and subpar defenses.

So why is Tom faulted for his team when Peyton gets praised for his?

because of the lovefest that the NFL has with Peyton! It's ridiculous!! But, it's how Peyton is anyways.....more worried about the stats!

When ever these two come up in a debate over who is the superior QB, the Manning guys always say "Look at the stats, Peyton owns all the records! Rings are team accomplishments, not individual accolades!" And they're right.

A ring is a team based honor, but so what? A Quarterbacks offensive stats are team based honors as well. Does Peyton Manning snap the ball to himself, pass blocks, throws the ball and then catches it? No, he has a good offensive team to make the stats work. Where BB gave Brady a good defense from 2001-2006, with mediocre and subpar receivers, Peyton had great offenses with mediocre and subpar defenses.

So why is Tom faulted for his team when Peyton gets praised for his?

This isn't a double standard. You've defended Manning with your own words. A defense as a whole is more important than receivers as an offensive group. I also think that pats fans have a habit of downgrading their receivers. Brady's had plenty of good receivers - maybe not overall as good as Manning, but not too far off. On the other hand, Manning's defenses have been much worse.

Brady's also had better special teams than Manning. His kickers didn't miss in crucial playoff moments. Manning's did. The pats had better punt and kickoff return teams, as well.

Finally, Brady's had a better head coach and only one head coach. Manning's had 4.

When ever these two come up in a debate over who is the superior QB, the Manning guys always say "Look at the stats, Peyton owns all the records! Rings are team accomplishments, not individual accolades!" And they're right.

A ring is a team based honor, but so what? A Quarterbacks offensive stats are team based honors as well. Does Peyton Manning snap the ball to himself, pass blocks, throws the ball and then catches it? No, he has a good offensive team to make the stats work. Where BB gave Brady a good defense from 2001-2006, with mediocre and subpar receivers, Peyton had great offenses with mediocre and subpar defenses.

So why is Tom faulted for his team when Peyton gets praised for his?

This isn't a double standard. You've defended Manning with your own words. A defense as a whole is more important than receivers as an offensive group. I also think that pats fans have a habit of downgrading their receivers. Brady's had plenty of good receivers - maybe not overall as good as Manning, but not too far off. On the other hand, Manning's defenses have been much worse.

Brady's also had better special teams than Manning. His kickers didn't miss in crucial playoff moments. Manning's did. The pats had better punt and kickoff return teams, as well.

Finally, Brady's had a better head coach and only one head coach. Manning's had 4.

Excuses...

Colts always have a good defense. that's why they won 10+ games each season.

And so what about Coach? So? Dungy is a good coach too. It is just that Brady has good fortune but don't use that excuse by saying that he is no good.

Does it embarrass you that your QB gets nicked on the leg and immediately goes crying to the refs to get a call? How much of a pathetic p@$$y does a guy have to be to do that? Is that your kind of competitor?

When ever these two come up in a debate over who is the superior QB, the Manning guys always say "Look at the stats, Peyton owns all the records! Rings are team accomplishments, not individual accolades!" And they're right.

A ring is a team based honor, but so what? A Quarterbacks offensive stats are team based honors as well. Does Peyton Manning snap the ball to himself, pass blocks, throws the ball and then catches it? No, he has a good offensive team to make the stats work. Where BB gave Brady a good defense from 2001-2006, with mediocre and subpar receivers, Peyton had great offenses with mediocre and subpar defenses.

So why is Tom faulted for his team when Peyton gets praised for his?

This isn't a double standard. You've defended Manning with your own words. A defense as a whole is more important than receivers as an offensive group. I also think that pats fans have a habit of downgrading their receivers. Brady's had plenty of good receivers - maybe not overall as good as Manning, but not too far off. On the other hand, Manning's defenses have been much worse.

Brady's also had better special teams than Manning. His kickers didn't miss in crucial playoff moments. Manning's did. The pats had better punt and kickoff return teams, as well.

Finally, Brady's had a better head coach and only one head coach. Manning's had 4.

Come, come, a hand from either:Let me be blest to make this happy close;'Twere pity two such friends should be long foes.

Two Gentlemen of VeronaAct V, Scene 4

Xlation .... give them both a hand of praise, I like thier fights anyway .... a pity, I like both.

Yeah! It's so unfair! What the general population thinks about a quarterback on a team I don't follow in relation to a quarterback on a team I do follow is detrimental to my life! I wish these people would just open their eyes!

Hey, they are both first ballot hall of fame QBs. We are quibling about something that is totally subjective. As many pick Manning, there are as many who pick Brady. Live with the fact these two are considered in many circles to be two of the best ever to play QB.

Just consider this... many consider Montana the GoaT, but, he is no where near both Manning and Brady from a stat perspective. So, what subjective measure is used for him? No need to answer. This just bolsters the fact this type of discussion will never have a conclusive result.

Hey, they are both first ballot hall of fame QBs. We are quibling about something that is totally subjective. As many pick Manning, there are as many who pick Brady. Live with the fact these two are considered in many circles to be two of the best ever to play QB.

Just consider this... many consider Montana the GoaT, but, he is no where near both Manning and Brady from a stat perspective. So, what subjective measure is used for him? No need to answer. This just bolsters the fact this type of discussion will never have a conclusive result.

Yeah but NOBODY ever mentions the jughead chokes, his fumble away in last years playoffs, his pick six to lose the SB, instead it was D giving up the TD play, and the onside kick in the SB LMFAO

brady's proven that he can get his monster stats if the team is engineered for a fantasy season. The Silver Spoon has always played on a fantasy team conducive to getting those fantasy stats, but that's what people like. Plus his TV deals get his horseface on TV a lot which make him more relatable to the people.

Here's a twist. How would Brady and Manning's career have fared if Manning had played for the Patriots and Brady played with the Colts?

Manning would have sucked big time playing in frigid Foxborough with Brady's smurf receivers and athletic yet porous O-line. Brady would have lit up the record books playing with Manning's hall of fame cast in the dome and lightning fast defense.

When ever these two come up in a debate over who is the superior QB, the Manning guys always say "Look at the stats, Peyton owns all the records! Rings are team accomplishments, not individual accolades!" And they're right.

A ring is a team based honor, but so what? A Quarterbacks offensive stats are team based honors as well. Does Peyton Manning snap the ball to himself, pass blocks, throws the ball and then catches it? No, he has a good offensive team to make the stats work. Where BB gave Brady a good defense from 2001-2006, with mediocre and subpar receivers, Peyton had great offenses with mediocre and subpar defenses.

So why is Tom faulted for his team when Peyton gets praised for his?

This isn't a double standard. You've defended Manning with your own words. A defense as a whole is more important than receivers as an offensive group. I also think that pats fans have a habit of downgrading their receivers. Brady's had plenty of good receivers - maybe not overall as good as Manning, but not too far off. On the other hand, Manning's defenses have been much worse.

Brady's also had better special teams than Manning. His kickers didn't miss in crucial playoff moments. Manning's did. The pats had better punt and kickoff return teams, as well.

Finally, Brady's had a better head coach and only one head coach. Manning's had 4.

Hey, they are both first ballot hall of fame QBs. We are quibling about something that is totally subjective. As many pick Manning, there are as many who pick Brady. Live with the fact these two are considered in many circles to be two of the best ever to play QB.

Just consider this... many consider Montana the GoaT, but, he is no where near both Manning and Brady from a stat perspective. So, what subjective measure is used for him? No need to answer. This just bolsters the fact this type of discussion will never have a conclusive result.

Yeah but NOBODY ever mentions the jughead chokes, his fumble away in last years playoffs, his pick six to lose the SB, instead it was D giving up the TD play, and the onside kick in the SB LMFAO

True, but Brady has his moments, too. Recall in the 2006 AFCCG he threw a pic to end the game and they were driving? You are correct, there is more glossing over the shortcomings of Manning to bolster his GoaT label which is mostly based on stats.

Here's a twist. How would Brady and Manning's career have fared if Manning had played for the Patriots and Brady played with the Colts?

Manning would have sucked big time playing in frigid Foxborough with Brady's smurf receivers and athletic yet porous O-line. Brady would have lit up the record books playing with Manning's hall of fame cast in the dome and lightning fast defense.

Not too certain about that.

Consider, Manning was drafted because he was the premier QB coming out of the college ranks. Any team that drafted him, including the Pats if that happened, would have built a team to support Manning's skillsets. Brady, on the other hand, did not come out of college known as a premier passer. He developed into one and only in the late 2000's did the Pats begin to give him some viable weapons to take advantage of his vastly improved passing skills. Don't you think the Patriots would have built a team in the same way the Colts did after they drafted Manning?